whoredome and bawdry which is amongst the most parte of Priests And moreouer the Canons denounce those persons to be Idolaters which heare the Masse of any Priest or Deacon that is a Fornicator For thus saith a Canon taken out of S. Gregory If any Priest Deacon or Subdeacon be stayned with the sinne of fornication we in the name of the father almighty by the authoritie of S. Peter doe vtterly forbid bim to come into the Church vntill he haue done penance and made amendes And if they continue in their sinne let no mā presume to heare their diuine seruice for their blessings shall be turned into cursings their prayer into sinne And this doth the Lord himselfe witnesse where he saith by his Prophet I will curse your blessings And as many as disobay this holesome commaundement shall fall into the sinne of Idolatry Were this Canon wel vnderstood of the infinite number of pore ignorant soules that hold of the Romish Religion and doe ordinarily hear the Masses and other Church seruices of lecherous priestes I beleeue they would rather forbeare it vtterly than defile themselues so wretchedly with Idolatrie And as saith this Canon receiue the curse of God in receiuing the blessing of such a priest But ignorance accompanied with error which hath been long bred and rooted in the Romain Church doe cause the poore people to be content to heare the masses of these Fornicators But if a maryed Priest should sing them a Mas they would stone him to death and not allow his masse to be good Behold what power long forgrowen error hath ouer poore ignorant people and how strangely the tirany therof causeth their wretched consciences to goe astray For by the auncient Canons it is a cursed thing to shun the offering of a maryed priest or to beleeue that the same is to be despised because he is marryed These be the very words of a Canon taken out of the councell of Gangra If any man make difference of a marryed Priest in forbearing to come to his offering as though he might not doe it because he is marryed Cursed be he And there is yet another Canon which saith that no Priest hath power to consecrate singingcakes except he be a man of good life Which thing should make the Romish Catholicks to thinke that they put them selues in great danger of Idolatry when they worship the singing cake although it were admitted that their doctrine of Transubstantiation were true which thing the Protestants doe still deny For questionles by this Canon all be Idolaters which worship the singing bread that is consecrated by priests of euill life as the most part of them be These be the very wordes of the Canon The priestes which minister the body and bloud of the Lord vnto the people doe wickedly in beleeuing that by the law of Christ it is the wordes which the priest speaketh and not his good life which make the consecration of the Sacrament And that to doe the same there nedeth but only the solemne pronouncing of the prayer without any merit of the priest for it is written that the Prieste which hath any blemish in him may not approch to the Lord to offer any Sacrifice vnto him So then by this Canon it may be well said that in these dayes there are very few Priestes which haue power to consecrate Moreouer in these dayes they obserue no parte of the Ceremonies appointed by the Canons in the saying of their Masse For they ought to sing the Masse in single linnen cloth and not in silks of colors These are the expresse words of the Canon By the opinion of vs all we ordain that no man presume to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Altar in cloth of silke nor in any other cloth of color but in linnen cloth only consecrated by the Bishop That is to say made and wouen of flax which groweth vpon the earth Euen in such like sorte as the bodye of our Lord Iesus Christ was buried and wrapped in a simple white sheete made of flax Neither ought they to sing or say Masse without two assistantes least they should offend in the congruity of Grammer in hauing but one when they said Dominus vobiscum and Orate pro me fratres speaking in the plurall number But yet this notwithstanding the most part of Masses are said nowadayes but with one Clarke to accompany the priest yea and often times the Priest is constrayned to answere himselfe as it is sayd by a common prouerbe of a priest named Martin These be the very wordes of the Canō It is also ordayned that no priest shal presume to say masse except he haue two assistants so as he himselfe may be the third For when he saith in the plurall number the Lord be with you these words of the Memento Brethren pray for me it is very conuenient that other folks should answere of themselues to his salutation So as if all these Canons be well considered euery man may well perceiue that the Romish Catholicks haue no great reason to make so great account of their Mas or to thinke the Protestants to be in error in that they will neither come at it nor allow of it Of Maryage The ix Chapter AS cōcering marriage the doctrine of the Protestauntes differeth not much from the doctrine of the romish catholickes In deed the Catholickes do terme it a sacrament and the protestantes say it is a holy institution of God but not a sacrament because that in euery sacramēt there must be an outward signe to bee discerned with the eie and an inward thing signified which is inuisible as I haue sayed of Baptisme heretofore shewing that in that sacrament the water is the outward signe and the washing of the soule is the inward inuisible thing signified And in the supper of our lord the bread and the wine are the outward signes and the body and the bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ bee the things signified which our soules do receiue inwardly and spiritually But it cannot be sayd that in marriage ther is an outward visible signe and an inward inuisible thing signified And therfore it is not a Sacrament Agayne the Protestants affirm that marriage is honorable amongst all sorts of people be they lay men or men of the church noble or vnnoble rich or poore because God hath instituted it and hath permitted the vse thereof to all persons of what quality soeuer they be and to celebrate the same at all seasons And that to make gloses and limitations or restrayntes of the which God hath set at liberty is to goe about to be wiser than God which in deede is starke foolishnesse beastly presumption and heddy trayterousnesse Contrarywise the romish Catholickes holde opinion that it is not lawfull for men of the church to be married at all nor to celebrate any marriage in Lent in Aduent and in the foure ember weeks And the reason whereupon they haue
it appeareth by the canons that the saluatiō of men doth doth not depend wholly vpon Baptisme but principallye vpon fayth These be the very wordes of the Canon S. Ciprian to proue that the torment of death may stād in stead of Baptisme hath grounded his argument vpon these wordes of Christ spoken to the vnbaptised theefe This day shalt thou bee with me in Paradise In the examining whereof more narrowly I fynde that not onely the suffering of death for the name of Christ but also the harty beleuing in him and the confessing of him may supply the want of baptisme when the party is so distressed by some extremity of tyme as he cannot haue the sacrament of batisme ministred vnto him And there followeth an other Canon which sayth that if a learner of the Catechisme that is to say such a one as is but newly entred into the doctrine of the faith and is not yet baptised do suffer marterdome for the name of Christ he fayleth not to be saued although hee want Baptisme And the reasō herof as sayth the same canons is because that in this case such as haue not receiued the sacrament of Baptisme haue not wanted it through pride or disdayne but through inforcement of necessity In likewise it is forbidden by the Canons that women how wise so euer they bee shall either preach or baptise It is true that hereunto they do ioyn this one exception which is if it be not in case of necessity But if it be graūted according to the truth that the Infants which dye vnbaptised be not therfore excluded from saluation It followeth well that no necessity can be great inough to dispēse with women for intermedling themselues with the administration of the Sacramentes And truely in old time as the canons do witnes Baptisme was not ministred ordinarily but only at two tymes in the yeare namely at Easter and at Whittesontyde which well bewrayeth that they vsed no such haste as that women shoulde bee fayne to meddle with the matter Likewise it doth also appeare by the Canōs that Baptisme was not ministred to the infidels but only to such as had faith and did make confession therof when they were of age to do it And as touching the forementioned Ceremonies in deed there are some Canons how be it of the worst stamp which do allow thē But the best and most auntient canons do vtterly dissallow thē For by the auntient Canons men are permitted to baptise in Riuers in the Sea in fountaynes and in euery other place commodious for that purpose These be the wordes of a Canon taken out of the decrees of Pope Victor Let the Gentiles that are come to the faith be baptised in all seasons and all places fit for them be it in Riuer sea or Spring as being made cleane by confession of the Christian fayth And by an other Canon it is well shewed that wee ought rather to rest vpon the Baptisme of the couenaunt of fayth than vpon the Baptisme of water For it sayth thus The true baptisme doth not consist so much in the washing of the bodie as in the beleife of the hart as the apostolicke doctrine doth teach vs saying They make cleane their hartes through fayth And in an other Canon going before it is sayed that a catholicke not Baptised for it presupposeth that one may be a catholick without being baptised whiche hath an ardent zeale of deuine charity is to be preferred before a wicked man that is baptised As for example sayth the Canon Cornelius the Centener who was filled with the holy ghost before he was baptised is to be preferred before Simon Magus who was possessed with an vncleane Spirit after he had bene Baptised But if Cornelius hauing receiued the holy ghost had not bene willing to be baptised he had bene greuously guiltye of the despising of so excellent a sacrament By which canon it is easy to iudge that wee ought altogether to depend vpon that which the sacrament doth signifie vnto vs and vpon the graces which god doth thereby geue vnto vs and not to set our mindes vpon a sort of superstitious and vayn ceremonies as the Romish catholicks do in these dayes For they may easely perceiue by the things aforesayd that the doctrine of the reformed religion touching the sacrament of baptisme is better more auncient furder from heresy than theirs is according to our three maximes here before set downe to proue the points which are in question Let vs now speak of the supper of the Lord. ⧠Of the Sacrament of the holy supper The vii chapter THe difference betwixt the Romish Catholickes and the Protestantes concerning the Supper of the Lord doth consist in three points The one in the naming therof for the Catholickes call that the keeping of Easter which the Protestantes doe name the Supper of the lord But this diuersitie of speaking importeth not much for both of them are still a celebrating of the mistery of our redemtion True it is that the Catholickes vse the maner of speaking of the old Testament according to the phrase whereof the feast of Easter that is to say the passeouer was celebrated by the eating of a Lambe which did represent Christ in remembrance of the deliuerance of the people of Israell whom God had brought out of the thraldome of Egipt But the Protestantes vse the manner of speaking of the new Testament whereby the holy institution which our Lord Iesus Christ ordayned to celebrate the remembrance of his death and passion and to make vs partakers of his body and bloud is called the supper of the lord But we must not striue about words so it be knowen that to keepe the Easter and to celebrate the Lords Supper are at this day one selfe same thing The second difference which is much greater consisteth in the substance of the Sacrament For the Catholickes at leastwise the schoolmen vphold that assoone as the priest hath spoaken the words of consecration ouer one hoaste or ouer many they change their nature presently and are transubstantiated into the very body and bloud of Iesus Christ in the selfe-same greatnes bignes that it was vpon the crosse so as the bread of the hoast is thē no longer bread although the color and the tast of bread remayn still therin Their proofe of this doctrine is that when our Lord Iesus Christ did institute his supper as he gaue the bread to his disciples he said vnto them This is my body And in geuing them the cup he said vnto them This is my bloud They proue it also by a Canon which beginneth thus I Beringarius c. which Canon saith in expresse wordes that after the consecration the bread and wine become not only sacraments but also the very body and the very blo ud of Christ And that the priest doth sensibly handle the same very bodye and breake it And that the faithful in eating the Sacrament with
eyes and tast with our mouthes to be bread and wine should be flesh and bloud No nor that neither which is contrary to the order of Nature namely that accidents should haue an abyding without a substance fitte and conuenient for them to be in or that a naturall body of a man may be inclosed in so small roome as the bignes or roundnes of an hoast for these things are contrary to nature And if the Catholicks reply that God is almighty and able to doe these things the Protestants doe answere that doutlesse he is of power to doe whatsoeuer he listeth In so much that because God will neither sinne nor lie we say he can neither lie nor sin But our Lord meant so litle that his body after his glorification should receaue vnnaturall qualities that cleane contrarywise he would haue his Apostles to iudge by the sence of their sight and feeling that his body was a true and perfect naturall body and not an imagined body And although the effects of the Sacrament be thinges diuine and supernaturall yet are they not contrary to nature as those are which depend vpon the doctrine of Transubstantiation Neither can it be proued by the word of God that the Sacraments or any other of the ordinances of God conteine any thing contrary to nature This doctrine of the Protestantes touching this Sacrament is also euidently grounded vpon the word of god For first of all we doe say and beleue according to the articles of our faith that Iesus Christ is ascended into heauen from whence he shall come not ten thousand times a dry but only once at the last day when he shall come to iudge both the quick and the dead Which thing S. Peter declareth very openly when in speaking of the last comming of our Lord he sayth thus Whom the heauens shall contein vntill the full setting of all things in perfecte state which God hath foretold by the mouthes of all his holy Prophetes that haue beene since the beginning of the world And Iesus Christ himselfe also did wel geue vs to vnderstand that we should not beleue that his body after his ascention should euery day return hither on the earth nor remayne shut vp in boxes when he said to his disciples which found themselues greeued at the shedding of a little ointmēt vpon his body You shall not haue me alwayes with you And yet notwithstanding we must beleeue that by the efficacie of his grace he will alway be with vs as he declared to his Apostles in sending them throughout the world to preach the doctrine of his grace saying vnto them Behold I am alwayes with you euen vnto the end of the world And we must furthermore consider that the body of Christ was made in all points like vnto the bodies of other men except sinne as the scriptures do witnes In so much that it hath euer had and still hath at this present a certain measure of greatnes and thicknes as the bodies of other men haue Wherupon it followeth of consequence that his body neither is nor euer hath been in any mo places than one at one time And therefore when he celebrated hys holy supper with hys Disciples the day before he suffered hys death passion his body which sate at the table was not in the bread which he gaue thē for the nature of a true body doth not permit it to be in any moe places than one at one tyme And if they reply that a glorified body may be in many places at one instaunt the aunswere thereunto is that the body of Christ was not thē glorified but mortall at the tyme when hee celebrated hys holy supper was put to death the day after and that the wordes of the holy supper cānot as now be true in any other sort than they were whē he spake them and instituted the Sacrament And therefore this replication is impertinent and besides that it is vntrue for the body of Christ hath not through his glorification lost the qualities of a perfect body whiche is to be felt to haue flesh and bones and to be contayned within the compasse of certayne bowndes And therefore when hee celebrated the holy supper hys body was not in the bread which he gaue to hys Disciples and much les was the bread transubstantiated into hys body Whereof it followeth that these words of Iesus Christ This is my body This is my bloud ought to be vnderstood sacramētally as if he had said This is the sacrament of my body of my bloud because that as is aforesayd the nature of a very true body in deede permitteth vs not to vnderstand that euery morsell of the bread which he gaue to his disciples was his owne natural body Also the words which S. Luke and S. Paul vse in speaking of the Sacrament of his bloud do well declare that it is so to bee vnderstood For they say not that Christ sayd This is my bloud but rather this cup is the newe couenaunt in my bloud Neuerthelesse wee must thinke it all one with the other speach where it is sayd this is my bloud or els should S. Luke and S. Paule be contrary to S. Mathew and S. Marke which were vngodly to beleue So that if it be graūted as truth is that to say this is my bloud is asmuch as to say this cup is the couenant in my bloud It followeth playnely that this manner of speaking ought to be vnderstoode of the sacrament of his bloud or of the sacrament of the new couenant of his bloud which is all one and commeth all to one sense For the bread and the wine of the supper are the sacramentes of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Iesus Christe and of the newe couenaunt which he maketh with vs because that in receiuing this sacrament with our mouthes our soules do also participate and receiue spiritually and really the thing signified which is the body and bloud of Christ in whiche participation consisteth the couenant which he maketh with vs. And in very deed Iesus Christ him selfe in speaking to his disciples of the eating of his flesh and of the drinking of his bloud yea and of the supper it selfe as the Catholickes expound it perceiuing them to be offended thereat tolde them that it ought to be vnderstood of a spirituall feeding and not of a crusshing of his flesh and hys bones betwixt their teeth nor of a cāniballike kinde of drinking of mans bloud as the catholicke scholemen of these dayes do vnderstand it Neither ought it to seeme a more straunge interpretation of these wordes this is my body to say this is the sacrament of my body thā to make the same interpretation of a great sort of other figuratiue speaches conteined in the scripture As for example where Christ sayth I am the vine and my Father is the husbandman I am the gate And agayne it is sayd the rocke was
was once a Priest yet as now he hath resigned that office vnto others The Apostle testifyeth that he is a Priest still and euer shall be saying thus of him Thou art a high Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech And because we shold not thinke that there should be any other priest thā he the Apostle teacheth vs that there may be none other in that he saith that no man may take the honor of high priest vnto himselfe except he be called of God as Christ was called to that office by his Father These be his very words No man may take that honor vpon him but he shall enioy it which is called of God as was Aaron Neyther hath Christ presumed of himselfe to be made high Preest but he hath bestowed that dignity vpon him which fayde vnto him Thou art my sonne this day haue I begotten thee Now as we are taught by this text that neyther there is nor ought to be any mo then one Sacrifice for the forgeuenes of sins that is to wit Iesus Christ which is and shal be the high preest for euer So are we taught also by other texts that there is but one only Sacrifice once offered for all sinnes and to obtayn euerlasting life which is the death and passion of Iesus Christ our Saviour And that we need none other Sacrifice for the remission of our sinnes but only that This is the very text of the Apostle which is so playn and cleere as nothing can be more By the which will we are made holy euen by the offering of the body of Christ once for all For by that one offering hath he made them perfect for euer which are to be sanctified where remission of sinnes is there needes no more Sacrifice for sinne Which words of the Apostle are a very definitiue sentence pronounced against the Masse For if there be no more offering for sinne what shall become of the masse seeing it is no other thing in substance as the very words of the consecration doe declare but a Sacrifice and an offering for the forgeuenes of the sinnes of the quick and the dead And in very deede the Catholick Schoolemē not being able by any meanes to rid themselues of these textes which are so playne and cleere do say for their refuge that the Mas is not a very Sacrifice in deed but a remembrance of the only and true Sacrifice of our Lord Iesus Christ But the answere to this shift of descant is very easie For seeing they doe maintayne that the very body of Christ is in the mas and that the bread of the singingcake is changed into his very body and the wine into his very bloud And that they breake his body in peeces and offer vp both the body and the bloud in Sacrifice vnto God It followeth of necessitie that their opinion is that it is a very Sacrifice and not a remembrance only On the other side the protestants doe say that the remembrance of the true Sacrifice of Iesus Christ ought to be done by celebrating his holy supper after the same maner that he hath appointed it For he hath ordayned that his Supper should be celebrated by many at once because it is a sacramentall communion of the body and bloud of our Sauiour by the which we are made one body and as it were one loafe in Iesus Christ become partakers of one selfesame bread of euerlasting life These are the wordes of S. Paule vpon the same matter Is not the cup of blessing which we blesse a partaking of the bloud of Christ And is not the bread which we breake a partaking of the body of Christ For we that are many are one loafe and one body because we be al partakers of one bread By which text it appeareth euidently that the remembrance of the Sacrifice of our Sauiour ought to be vsed in celebrating the holy Supper by many together accordingly as when he did institute and celebrate it with his Disciples they were many together And so consequently it followeth that the Mas neither is nor can be a true remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ seeing that none taketh part of it but the priest him selfe Now let vs come to the Canones The Canons which we haue alleaged in the former Chapter when we spake of the Lordes Supper doe sufficiently confute this Transubstātiation which is the very principall parte and foundation of the Masse And therfore we will speake no more of that point But I will speake of certain difficulties into the which the Transubstantiatiō hath led the schole diuines as it hapneth commonly according to the saying of the Logicians that in admitting one absurditie there follow many moe The schole doctors hauing once graunted that the bread and wine in the Masse are Transubstantiated into the very body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ are greately troubled how to resolue diuers other questions which haue growen vpon the same matter Pope Innocent the third reciteth one of them which he sayth was greatly debated amongst the sayd Scholedoctors howbeit in such sort as they knew not how to determine it That is to witt whether the water which the preest putteth into the chalice with the wine be transubstātiated into bloud or not for they imagine that water must nedes be put into the chalice where the wine is bicause it is written that out of the side of our Lord Iesus Christ there did issue both bloud and water Notwithstanding their opinion is that there ought to be more wine than water For Pope Honorius the third did sharply checke a certayne Bishop who in singing masse did put more water in his chalice then wine wherupon grew a great disputation amongst the Scholediuines as Pope Innocent reporteth For some of thē held opinion that the water was not Transubstantiated into wine but remayned naturall water still bicause say they there was water in the bloud which issued out of the side of our Lord Iesus Christ when he was vpon the Crosse And therfore seeing that the wine in the Chalice at the masse tyme is Transubstantiated into the very bloud it must needes be that the water remayneth water still to the ende that there be an answerable resemblance aswell of the water as of the bloud Others sayd that although it were graunted that water must needes remayne still in the Chalice with the bloud yet notwithstanding it must alwayes be beleeued that the water which the priest putteth into the Challice is turned into the selfe same water which issued out of the side of our Lord Iesus Christ Which opinion seemeth to haue most shew of wit and most proportionble resemblance agreeing to the matter though at the first sight it might seeme an absurde thinge to saye that water is turned into other water For looke by what reason the wine is trāsubstantiated into the very bloud by the same reason is the water changed into the
¶ An Apology or defence for the Christians of Fraūce which are of the Euāgelicall or reformed religion for the satisfiing of such as wil not liue in peace and concord with them Whereby the purenes of the same Religion in the chiefe poyntes that are in variance is euidently shewed not onely by the holy scriptures and by reason But also by the Popes owne Canons Written to the king of Nauarre and translated out of french into English by Sir Iherom Bowes Knight AT LONDON Printed by Iohn Day dwelling ouer Aldersgate And are to be sold at his Shop vnder the gate 1579. Cum Priuilegio Regiae Maiestatis ¶ To the right high noble Prince Henrye the second king of Nauarre Prince of Bearn Duke of Vandome and Albret Earle of Foyze Arminack Agenois Bigorie Marle c SYR it is not without cause nor without exaumple that I dare take vpon mee to dedycate vnto your highnes this litle Apologye which contayneth a defence of the reformed Religion and of the Professors of the same For in asmuch as your Maiestie hath euen from your youth vndertakē the defence therof with the hasard of your life gooddes for the same I could not more fitly preferre the iustification of so holy a cause to any than to your Highnes who haue alwayes maintayned the same not onely in words but also by deedes and that with most noble and Princely courage following the renowmed footsteps of the late Queen of Nauarre your mother whose godlynes curtesie and other heroicall vertues are consecrated for euer to most honorable eternitie And I haue beene led to take vpō me this defence to dedicate it to your Maiestie by the example of many good and godly men in the Primitiue church who in their times wrote diuers Apologies in defence of the Christians against the misreportes and illusions of the heathen and did put them vp to the Romayn Emperors that were in those dayes who notwithstanding that they were heathen Princes and ignorāt of the true Religion were moued by them to succor the Christians and to surcease the persecutions that were made against them Quadratus and Aristydes wrote Apologies in their times in defence of the Christians against the heathen and dedicated them to the Emperor Adrian who hauing reade them and perceiuing therby that the Christians worshipped the great God which gouerneth all the world and that in the exercising of their Religion they did not any thing that was preiudiciall to the lawes of the Romain Empire but rather prayed for the prosperitie of him and of his Empire sent a Proclamation to Fundanus the gouerner of Asia wherin he forbad the persecuting of thē any more as in respect of Religion and commaunded that the slaunderers of them should be sore punished And moreouer he caused diuers faire churches to be builded in many places without any Images pictures or portratures greatly allowing the doctrine of the Christians for that it forbiddeth the painting and portraying of God the worshipping of Images or the hauing of them in their churches Likewise Iustine the Philosopher wrote in his time two Apologies that are come to light in defence of the Christians against the false accusations of the heathen whereof he dedicateth the one to the Senate of Rome the other to the Emperor Antonine the godly who being moued therat made a generall law wherby he restrayned the heathen from their false blaming of the Christians for the earthquakes and other publike calamities willing them to impute them to their owne sinnes for he sayd that the Christians worshipped the great God more deuoutely than the heathen themselues worshipped the multitude of their Gods. And he prohibited all men aswell Magistrates as priuate persons to persecute the Christians any more or to slaunder them with accusations or false crimes commaunding them to obserue the foresayd proclamation of his father and Predecessor the Emperor Adrian in all pointes Also Melito the Bishop of Sardis wrot an Apologie in defence of the Christians against the Heathen which he dedicated to the Emperor Marke Antony the Philosopher who was moued therby to fauor the Christians and to cause the persecutions to cease which had bin made in the Prouinces of the Empire without his knowledge and commaundement by the Gouernors and other Magistrates which abused the mildnes and clemency of their Prince as a number doe in these dayes Yea and this good Emperor finding by experience that the Christians were the good and welbeloued seruants of the true God for he wan a great battell against the Marcomannes and Quades by the only prayers of a Legion of Christian Soldiars that were in his army not only forbad the persecuting of the Christians by open Proclamation but also gaue leaue to become Christians to as many as would willing and commaunding that all such as accused any man alonly in respect of Christian Religion shold be greeuously punished as cosoners and slanderers and that no Christian should be compelled to change his Religion Many others besides these as Tertulian and Appollinaris haue pleaded and mayntayned the same cause by setting forth Apologies which haue greatly auayled yea euen with the Heathen Emperors of their times who to say the truth as heathenish as they were haue treden out the way to the Princes of our dayes which beare the titles of Christians and Catholicks to shew them what vprightnes and modesty they ought to vse in the case of Religion Forasmuch therfore as our reformed religiō is blamed and outragiously defaced nowadayes by such as neither do nor wil vnderstand it I after the example of so many good persons haue set my hand to the pen to shew by this short defence that the same is not only grounded vpon Gods pure word and consequently agreeing with the Christen Religion of the primatiue Church but also that it is warranted by the very Canons of the Popes themselues and of the Church of Rome And I am sure that your maiestye being naturally enclined to the peace of Fraunce will not onely take more pleasure to heare the sound of these Canons than the sound of those which haue so often times terribly thundered to the destruction of this desolate kingdome of Fraunce but also be moued to maintaine the same Religion constantly more and more and to be a meane to the French king our soueraign Lord for the reliefe and quietnes of such as professe the same For if the heathen Emperors whom I haue named afore haue vouchsafed to releeue and fauor the Christians in their times without hauing any further knowledge of the Christian Religion than that it contayned not any thing contrary to the Ciuill Lawes how much more ought we to hope for the like at the handes of our most Christian king by your intercession specially seeing that our Religion thanks be to God contayneth not any doctrine which may not well beseeme good Christians and which tendeth not to the aduancing of kings and of their estates as
Christ The Lambe is the passeouer The circumcision is the couenaunt The sacrifice is the clensing of the law and Christ is the church For out of question all these textes are to bee interpreted figuratiuely Thus may you see that the doctrine of the Protestauntes touching the holy sacrament of the supper is grounded vpon the pure word of God. But now as touching the canons The Catholickes thinke they make altogether for them and for the vpholding maintayning of their transubstantiatiō as in deed there be of them which do and chiefly the canon before alleadged which is an abiuratiō that pope Nicolas caused to bee made at Rome by one Beringarius a deacon of the church of S. Mawrice of Angiers by which abiuratiō they inforced this poore man of Angiers to say and protest that he renounced the doctrine that he had holden aforetime wherby he had maintained that the bread and wine of the sacramēt remained bread and wine stil after the consecration that the body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ could not be handled with the handes of men nor eaten with their teeth Declaring that contrariwise he there allowed the doctrine of the Romish church and of pope Nicholas that is to wit that after the cōsecration the bread and the wine doe chaunge and transubstantiate themselues into the very body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ and that the priest in putting the sacramēt into the mouthes of the faythfull doth sensibly handle Christes very body it selfe and that the faythfull doe crowze and crashe it betwixt their teeth But agaynst this goodly abiuration racked by pope Nicholas and a hundred and fourtene bishops out of this pore Deacon whom they helde amongest them in their clawes there are many other canōs to be opposed which are of a better stampe Thus sayth one of them which is taken out of S. Augustine wher he interpreteth these wordes of the Lord The wordes which I haue spoken vnto you are spirit life meaning of the eating of his flesh and of his bloud These words sayth he are spirit and life to those that vnderstande them spiritually But to those that vnderstand them carnally they are neither spirit nor life You shall not eate this bodye that you see neither shall you drinke the bloud which they shall shed that shall crucifye me the thing that I commend vnto you is a sacrament If you vnderstād it spiritually it will quicken you the fleshly vnderstanding thereof auayleth nothing at all Afterwards he concludeth thus The Lord shall be still aboue vntill the end of the world but yet in the meane while his truth shal remayn here amongest vs For it must needes be that the body wherein he is risen agayne is in a place certayne but his truth is spred euery where throughout the worlde And to shew that the flesh of our lord is not crushed so betwixt the teeth as Beringarius sayth in his abiuration here is an other canon taken also out of S. Augustine which sayeth thus To what purpose doost thou prepare thy teeth and thy belly beleue and thou hast eaten for to beleue in the Lord is to eat the bread and to drinke the wine who so beleueth in him eateth him And an other Canon following sayth thus That which is seene and perceiued with the eies is the bread and the cuppe but as in respect of sayth which seeketh to be taught the bread is Christs body and the cup is his bloud And because the receiuing of the sacrament is spirituall It followeth that at that supper the wicked receiue but the signes onely not the things signified whiche are the spirituall meat of Christes body and bloud And the same is auowed by an other Canon which sayth He that agreeth not with Christ eateth not his flesh nor drinketh his bloud though he receiue the sacrament to his vtter vndoing and damnation By these Canons it appeareth plainly that transubstantiation is reproued and condemned and so by cosequence the locall worshipping of the body of christ in the sacrament of the bread and wine But before I passe out of this matter I will alleadge one text of S. Augustines which is so cleare and fitte to confute this transubstantiatiō as is possible For first of all that men may learne to know what manner of speaches in the scriptures are to be taken figuratiuely and what are to be taken according to the letter he setteth downe this rule which is a very notable one If there be any thing sayth he so spokē in Gods word as that it can not properly agree with the comelines of good maners nor with the trueth of fayth you must take the same to be figuratiuely spoken Afterwardes to make this rule plain by examples he sayth these very wordes If then the maner of speaking be a precept so as it forbiddeth any crime and misbehauiour or commaundeth the thing that is good and behoue full such maner of speaking is not figuratiue But if it seeme to commaund an euill fact or to forbidde the thing that is good and behouefull then is it spoken figuratiuely Vnlesse you eate the fleshe of the sonne of man sayth our Lord and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you By this maner of speaking he seemeth to commaunde a cruelty and an euill facte in eating of his fleshe and drinking of his bloud therefore it is a figure wherby we be commaunded to become partakers of the passion of our Lord and to imprint gentlye and profitably in our memories that his flesh was māgled and crucified for vs. The Scripture sayeth likewise If thine enemye hunger feede him if he be a thirst geue him drink no doubt but in this case he commaundeth a good deede But wheras it followeth for in so doing thou shalt heape coales of fire vpon his head forasmuch as thou mayest thinke that he commaundeth a malicious deed doubt not but that this manner of speache is figuratiue and that those wordes may be taken two manner of waies the one to do hurt the other to do good Thou oughtest therfore rather to construe them according to charitye than otherwise and by those burninge coales to vnderstand the burning sighes of repentaunce wherby the pride of the party is healed in that he repenteth himself to haue bene an enemy to such a one as releeueth his misery and necessity Also it is written who so loueth his soule shal lose it Now It is not to be thought that he forbiddeth so requisite a thing as the sauing of a mans owne soule but that this speache ought to bee taken figuratiuely He shall lose his soule that is to say he must suppresse and forsake the froward vntoward dealing wherunto his mind is now geuen by meanes wherof he is so greatly wedded to these temporall things that he hath no regard of the euerlasting things Agayn it is also written Shew mercy and receiue not the sinner The latter